Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Oxford University and the Pomfret benefaction of 1755 : vertu made visible

Henrietta Louisa JeBeys, Oxford University and the Pomfi-et Benefaction of 1 75 5 : Vertu made Visible

Dennine Lynette Dudley B.A., University of Victoria, 1988 M.A., University of Victoria, 1992

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of History in Art

0Denni.e Lynette Dudley, 2004

University of Victoria

All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying of other means, without the permission of the author.

Supervisor: Dr. Paul B. Wood

ABSTRACT

In 1755 Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Countess of Pomfret, donated a substantial collection of Greco-Roman statuary to the University of

Oxford. Once part of a larger collection assembled under Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, the statues had descended to Jeffreys through the family of her husband, Thomas Ferrnor, having been purchased in 1691 for their country seat at Easton Neston in Northamptonshire. Oxford gratefully received this benefaction and it was publicly (and variously)

commemorated.

Emphasis on 'quality' and reliance on 'authority' have previously obscured the importance of the Pomfret statuary, subsuming it within Arundel's iconic connoisseurship. Interdisciplinary in approach, this dissertation employs new archival evidence to resituate the Pomfret marbles within larger historical and art-historical contexts and (citing contemporary images and texts) re-evaluates the collection's cultural

significance. Adopting the approach of Dr. Carol Gibson-Wood, my work augments new scholarship concerned with reassessing the character of the early modern art market and its associated collecting practices.

The primary concern in the dissertation is restoring the voice of Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, whose motives for the benefaction have previously been misrepresented. Her personal response to social and

cultural conditions actuated both her obtaining the statues and her dispensing of them. A second concern is to contextualize Oxford's status within the socio-political discourse of early Georgian England in order to demonstrate that the Pomfret collection was genuinely valuable to the Ufiiversity. The collection provided a collective symbol of vertu (which implied

commitment to correct moral behaviour and taste) for that embattled academic institution and identified Oxford as a location of national importance. The dissertation's structure is provided with a third

consideration which ultimately incorporates the other two - the provenance of the statuary. While proceeding chronologically from Arundel's

acquisition through Oxford's reception, the historical details are augmented with analyses of how the collection was promoted and perceived. By

revealing how ideals and ideologies of vertu informed the collection, its donation, its publicists, and its audience, this dissertation addresses the wider significance of the Pomfret benefaction in early modern England.

Table of Contents

Title Page

...

i . . Abstract

...

ii Table of Contents

...

iv .

.

List of Figures..

...

.vii Format

...

.ix Abbreviations..

...

xi

.

. Acknowledgements

...

.xi1

. .

Dedication..

...

.xiv Frontispiece..

...

.xv Introduction

...

.1

introduction to the Pomfret donation; description of the 1757 Oxford Almanack, its purpose explained; themes of the dissertation;

methodological summary; outline of chapter contents.

Chapter 1: Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys

...

11

background: issues, sources, structure; youth: birth, family, religion; years

at court: marriage, status, children, social circles; retirement from court: 1738-1 741 continental trip, return to England, studies, family concerns, 1749-1 751 in France; widowhood: death of Lord Pomfret; her later years.

Chapter 2: The Arundel Collection, 1612-1691

...

..

..

..

49

16th- 17th century virtuosity: theories of connoisseurship, the Arundels, early Stuart England; origins of the collection: Arundels in Italy, history

of

acquisitions, selffashioning, publicity, reception; the inscriptions:

Arundel's intentions, civil war, family succession, John Evelyn's role & agenda; the inscriptions again: donated to Oxford, further publicized; the

statues: Evelyn's plan, dispersal.

Chapter 3: Easton Neston and the Pomfret Predicament..

...

. 8 4

dispersal of the Arundel collection: Wilton, Cupid's Gardens, Richard Mead, Chiswick; Easton Neston: Fermor status, "exhibiting" the

collection, Pomfiet inherits; antiquarian connections: general background, evaluation of sources; Pomfret ownership: restoration, conservation, preservation, publication and publicity; the later provenance: the original

intent, the contingency plan, Oxford involvement.

Chapter 4:Oxford University at Risk

...

138

Oxford history: the questions, the Restoration; scholarship; early

Hanoverian Oxford; Oxford ideology under George

II:

Whigs and Tories;

1 748 sedition charges, the Oxford Almanack, 1 749 Solemnity at the RadclifSe Library, 1 753 King Alfred resurrected; 1754: enrollment

dropping, the Rag Plot and the county election, two explanations for the Almanack; 1755: the Pomfret benefaction, Minerva at the academy;

Oxford joins the modern world.

...

Chapter 5: The Public Face of V e r t u . . .17 1

the concerned parties: the institution, the public, the disenfranchised, negotiating the boundaries; the Publick Act 1756: ceremony days 1-3, publicity, reception, the catalogue, the stele; expression and agenda in

associated literature: Oxford guidebooks, scholars' poems, alumnus encomium, a novel dedication; personal gratitudes: Oxford hospitality, the honorary doctorate; the Publick Act 1759: special invitation, Westmoreland's installation, the Encaenia, the statuary revisited,

Bardwell portrait; final interactions: gifts, JefSreys ' death, daughters ' predicament, Oxford burial, St. Mary's memorial.

...

Conclusion .2 16

Jeneys ' historical reputation, Walpole 's motivations, the 19th century, the 20th century, now.

. .

_...

Bibliography.. -227

...

vii

List

of

Figures

Frontispiece

. .

Vertu made visible

...

xv

Chapter 1 Figure 1.1. Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys. Countess of Pomfret

...

10

Figure 1.2. Jeffreys7 social diaries

...

13

Chapter 2

....

Figure 2.1. Thomas Howard. 14th Earl of Arundel. with statue gallery 48

...

Figure 2.2. Alatheia Talbot. Countess of Arundel. with painting gallery 52 Figure 2.3. the Arundel "Homerus" (right)

...

68

Figure 2.4. Greek funerary relief

...

79

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1. Easton Neston. east facade with garden and statuary

...

83

Figure 3.2. The Cascade at Wilton with classical statuary

...

86

Figure 3.3. Cupid's Gardens classical fragments

...

89

Figure 3.4. Discourse on prints. catalogues and Fermor statuary

...

103

Figure 3.5. Roman bust at Wilton

...

111

Figure 3.6. Sleeping Cupid. Rome

...

130

Figure 3.7. Pallas Athena (Minerva). cameo in the Greek style

...

132

....

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1. Oxford: "the proud Piles of Ancient Art" (T

.

Warton)

...

137

Figure 4.2. The Opening of the Radcliffe Library

...

148

Figure 4.3. Radcliffe Library. St . Mary's church at left

...

151

Figure 4.4. Cherubs supporting Alfred and University College

...

153

Figure 4.5. Commemorating the Pomfret benefaction

...

161

Figure 4.6. Minerva and Alma Mater

...

-163

Figure 4.7. Learning prevents Time's destruction

...

165

Figure 4.8. Sculpture and Learning discuss the Trojan War

...

166

Figure 4.9. Architecture and Geometry plan the museum

...

168

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1. Jeffreys' diary entries relating to the Publick Act

...

174

Figure 5.2. The Pomfret Minerva (Pallas Athena)

...

182

Figure 5.3. Table of Contents with Pomfret Statues

...

186

...

Figure 5.4. Announcement of Gratitude. second edition 193

...

Figure 5.5. Title Page with Print of Radcliffe Library 197 Figure 5.6. Dedication to Jeffreys

...

200

...

Figure 5.7. Statues in Old Schools. Guidebook Page 208 Figure 5.8. Catalogue page listing benefactor's portraits

...

209

Format

General Notes

Throughout the text the following conventions have been employed:

1 . "Oxford", "Oxford University", and "the University of Oxford" have all

been used to refer to the institution of the University and its administration unless otherwise noted.

2. Original spellings and print designations have been retained wherever possible. I dislike regularized texts. I believe that they inhibit appreciation for the historical period.

3. The term vertu will be found in several different forms throughout the

text (virtue, virtu, vertli, vertue, vertu) although I have adhered to the one spelling when in my own voice. Throughout the early modern world, the concept that exposure to "High Culture" (vertii) would create model citizens (virtue) with cultured taste (vertu) and public spirit (virtu) was a

prevailing ideoIogical model. I employ vertu because it is the form I

consider the most anglicized and most comprehensive in meaning and applicability. It is italicized for emphasis.

4. I have chosen to refer to Henrietta Louisa by her own family name of Jeffreys, although she herself used the signature HLPomfret. I have several

reasons for doing so. One is clarity, for Jeffreys' thoughts and actions then become more distinguishable from Pomfret's. Her family name also acts as a reminder of her right to her father's estate which had great impact on her life. Additionally, the Jeffreys name serves to separate her from the "Lady Pornfret" who has come down through history and is little more than a caricature. It is not my intention to suggest that her title and role as Lord Pomfret's wife were not important to her, but given her interest and pride in her own family history, and that even in the period women's family names could be provided for emphasis (e.g. Lady Dorthea Savile, Countess of Burlington), I regard my usage as slightly anachronistic, but not

I have not been consistent in this application when referring to other

women, since that could cause greater confusion and, for some of them, the issue of identity (as a historical construct) does not arise in the same way. For example, Lady Hartford often features more prominently in period histories than her Lord.

The Jeffreys Diaries

1 . Several forms of Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys' autobiographical accounts

survive as part of the Finch family archive deposited in the Leicestershire and Rutlandshire County Record Office. Citations from her diaries are taken from the six bound volumes of formal social diaries (LRO DG7ID111- 6) unless otherwise noted.

2. For the formal diaries Jeffreys established a chart format and used it for all six volumes. The layout created six vertical columns across each two page spread and seven horizontal rows. The headings for the columns, left to right are: Situation [location], Incidents & Occurances [mostly

correspondence, but sometimes political news, or continuation of text from facing page], Month, Week [day], Day [date], Year, Where & What

Company [this details the activities of her day]. I have not indicated which section of the diary chart ("Occurrences" or "Where and What Company") extracted material fell under, unless the positioning has some specific relevance.

3. One of the fascinating features of Jeffreys' diaries is the juxtaposition of numerous types of commentary, often in a single entry (personal, familial, political, cultural, domestic, social, religious, intellectual, etc.). In this dissertation I have not often been able to convey this characteristic, but the reader should be aware that the material used here has been extracted from a multi-faceted work.

4. In this dissertation Jeffreys' diary entries are referred to by date; a breakdown of the dates covered by each volume of the diaries is given in the list of archival sources at the beginning of the bibliography.

Abbreviations

Standard multi-volume published sources are cited by volume number and page; specific dates will not be provided unless they clarify some point of chronology.

The frequently used abbreviations are listed here:

Collecteana Reliquiae Hearnianae: The Remains of Thomas Hearne, 3

volumes, edited by Philip Bliss, London: John Russell Smith, 1869. Corr. Diary Easton Vertue Yale

Correspondence between Frances, Countess of Hartford and Henrietta Louisa, Countess of Pornfret, between the years 1738 and 1741, 3 volumes, edited by W. M. Bingley, London: Richard Phillips, 1805.

The Diary of John Evelyn, 6 volumes, annotated and edited

by E.S. de Beer, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. "A Description of Easton Neston." Pp. 53-66 in A

Catalogue of the curious collection of Pictures of George Villiers Duke of Buckingham..

.

.[etc.].

.

.

.,

anonymous author, London: W. Bathoe, 1758.

George Vertue's "Notebooks", transcripts issued by the Walpole Society in their annual volumes: 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30. Oxford: University Press, 1930-50.

The Yale Edition of Horace Walpole's Correspondence, 48

volumes, edited by W.S. Lewis, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937-83.

xii

Acknowledgments

The completion of this dissertation has been facilitated by the direction, guidance, encouragement, financial assistance, and additional support from numerous sources, both individual and institutional. I regret that I am unable to acknowledge every person whose name should appear here.

I would like to make special acknowledgement of my gratitude both to Carol Gibson-Wood, for supervising my studies and the conceptualizing, research, development and early draft stages of this dissertation, and to Paul B. Wood, for stepping in to supervise this work through its completion and for providing support and encouragement in a difficult time.

The members of my examining committee not only agreed to make time to oversee the completion of my dissertation, but also have embraced the project with enthusiasm. Each of them has been a valuable resource for my professional development. I am deeply appreciative of the instructive input provided by Gordon Fulton, John Money, Marcus Milwright, Paul B. Wood, and my external examiner, Joan Coutu.

I would like to thank Tom Cleary for bringing his expertise to my

examination. I would also like to recognize the contribution made by the members of my original committee in launching me on this research, adding extra thanks to John P. Oleson who has continued to be actively supportive.

Critically important to the development of my scholarship are the scholars who have gone out of their way to serve as mentors. For their many

kindnesses and instructive comments, I would like to thank, in particular, Erin Campbell, Janis Elliott, and Kim Sloan.

Many of my fellow graduate students assumed roles on my support team, encouraging me with their insights, suggestions, and humour! Lisa

Langford, Nancy Yakimoski and Richelle Funk are the best of starting companions. Justin McGrail, Monica Roman, and Pauline Ripat keep me attuned to the larger picture. Rebecca Michaels deserves special thanks for introducing me to Evelyn and Photoshop.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Karen McDonald and Iona Hubner in the slide library for all their assistance with visual materials, their insightful suggestions, and their supportive presence.

The support network in the History in Art department deserves my deepest thanks; Darlene Pouliot, Debbie Kowalyk and Anne Heinel looked after the administrative side of things with their customary patience and an air of reassurance that never failed to raise my spirits. The staff in Graduate Studies too, were extremely helpful in responding to my requests for

assistance. I would also like to thank my graduate advisor, Kathlyn Liscomb, for her concern and care in overseeing the process.

I am very appreciative of the staff members at all the libraries and research institutions that made this research possible, including the McPherson

Library (especially the Inter-Library Loans office and the Microforms division) at the University of Victoria. Libraries, archives, and museums in England have been critically important to my work. Curators, archivists, librarians, keepers, and support staff have unfailingly been generous with

access and assistance at the following institutions: the British Library; Prints

& Drawings at the British Museum; the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in

British Art; the National Portrait Gallery; the Public Record Office at Kew; the Bodleian Library; the Ashmolean Museum; and the Warburg Institute.

Special acknowledgment must be made of the staff at the Leicestershire and Rutlandshire County Record Office, who provided a great deal of assistance and really facilitated my research; I'm glad that the diaries are in such a great place to work.

This dissertation (and the travel it required) was fostered by several forms of financial support. This funding also permitted me to develop my

research with both further study and the feedback I received at conferences. I am grateful for such assistance from the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada , the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, the Historians of British Art, the University of Victoria, the department of Graduate Studies, the Graduate Students' Society, and the department of History in Art.

Not least, my thanks are due to Trina Dudley and Dennis Dudley, who have contributed every means of support and encouragement; their continued interest in my work has been the most valuable form of backing.

Without my sister and her family I would not still be standing, let alone finishing my programme. Davienne kept me from faltering on orodruin. Both she and Tom brought insightful suggestions and the analytical skills of their own disciplines to my work. Together with Dennan and Daya, the Browns give meaning to my research by reminding me why I'm on this journey in the first place and what humanistic study is truly about

xiv

Dedication

And ere you begin a boo@ foyet not to reade the Epistk?; for commonfj they rue best CaGoured a n d p e n d For as in a g a m n t , whtsoever the stuffe be, the owner (for the most part) affecteth a cosdy andqtrraordinarie fming; and in the house of a country G e n t h n , the porch of a Citizen, the canredgate andpaintedpostes carrie away tlie Gloriefrom the rest: So it is with our common Authors, qthey h u e any wit at & they set it

fie

velwt before, though tlie bate,

fie

a ban&nrpts doublet, be 6ut of poldauie or buc@m

"17ie Dedicate

y

Episth" Hen y Peacfiam (;l;r;e Cumpbat gentfetnan 1622

I would like to express my gratitude, respect, and admiration for Carol

Gibson-Wood. My observation of her working methods and integrity inspired me to begin this degree programme; without her generous encouragement and exacting guidance it would not have been concluded.

Frontispiece: Vertu made visible.

Engraving by J. Green, after a drawing by S. Wale.

Introduction

In late 1756, the University of Oxford issued its annual almanac for the coming year. Each Oxford Almanack was produced in poster format, with

a large illustrative print above (or integrated with) a tabular calendar of important dates.' The image prepared for the 1757 edition (frontispiece)

featured one of the finest compositions and one of the most complex iconographical programmes of all these prints. Ostensibly a

commemoration of the Pomfret donation of 1755, this Almanack depicts

allegorical beings interacting with real statues and reliefs in a capriccio

setting.2

The design moves from a ruined amphitheatre on the left (its antiquity emphasized by the destructive figure of Time in front) to a substantial medieval building on the right (representing Oxford's history by means of the statues of King Alfred and an unidentifiable bishop sheltered in its walls). Along with the pyramid, "parthenon", rotunda and neo-classical "panthe~n'~, these structures create a complete architectural lineage. In visual form they represent cultural authority cloistering a renewed classical world, in the "new" Oxford made possible by the generosity of Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Countess of Pomfret.

Jeffreys had given to the University a substantial number of classical statues. These antique marbles had come to England as acquisitions for the Arundel collection and were highly regarded as part of that assemblage (which has been identified as the first English art collection of note). Gifted to Oxford in 1755, the statues were at that time reunited with Arundel's classical inscriptions, brought earlier to the University by John Evelyn. Objects from both groups are included in the 1757 Almanack image.

The standard monographs on the Oxford Almanack are Petter (1946) arid Petter (1974). 2 _{The iconography of this image is described more fully in Chapter 4.}

Jeffreys' benefaction was commemorated by the University in a number of ways including a public celebration in 1756, an illustrated catalogue (published 1763), and the Almanack of 1765. The complicated nature of

this publicity campaign is exemplified by the iconographical programme of the 1757 Almanack which, while celebrating Jeffreys' donation, also

communicated another message. The print identified Oxford as a location of national importance, where vertu could be absorbed in a classical milieu

and new meaning applied to the values of traditional scholarship.

The official Explanation published to accompany the 1757 Almanack

indicates a specific agenda: "the University, attended by her three Faculties, is introduced from her Gothic Retirement by Minerva to the Knowledge of [the] Arts".' In the 1757 Almanack emphasis is not on the

intrinsic value of the statues. The print illuminates how the donation reflected the collective self-identity of the institution, addressing the relationship between education and vertu.

More than just having an appreciation for fine arts, as it is often

defined, vertu encompasses and surpasses both "virtuous" and "cultured"; it

is closer to having an affinity with the arts. In the eighteenth century art theory and criticism focussed on the didactic values of art.' It was

expected that a cultured individual would bring understanding and appreciation to the viewing of (good) art. The work(s) of art, as embodiments of vertu, would impart more of these same qualities and

inspire an increased commitment to correct moral behaviour and taste. It was this affinity between connoisseur and fine art which was referred to as

vertu. Repeated viewing would strengthen the communion, which could

3

The following quotations are from the official Explanation, given in transcript by Petter (1974: 68). All other interpretation is mine unless otherwise noted.

This dissertation is primarily concerned with visual arts, but the same concept was applied to other media, such asliterature and music. For examples of art theory, the writings of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1712) and Jonathan Richardson (1719) differ on numerous other points, but agree on this one, v. Gibson-Wood (2000: 144-45).

also be further developed and refined through study and connoisseurship.i While relying on the culturally pervasive ideology of vertu, the

designers of the 1757 Almanack also took care to indicate to their audience

precisely how the collection would be integrated with academic studies: "The Design of the Plate is to exhibit the Connexion of the Studies of Antiquity, Sculpture, and Architecture, with what is usually called

academical Learning". The details represent these academic concerns. For example, one of the three vignettes depicts Sculpture discussing the relief of the Trojan War with the Spirit of Classical Learning.

The other episodes are more complicated. In one, Architecture and Geometry consult on a building proposed to house "these once more united Collections". This scene does not simply show how the statues will be useful to the University. By referring to the reunion of the statues with the Arundel inscriptions, the print also portrays Oxford as the premier site for the preservation of knowledge. This concept is further emphasized by the juxtaposition of the ruined amphitheatre with the new Palladian structure on the right. The third group also does such double duty. At the extreme left of the print "Antiquity" is represented by the Spirit of Learning, who simultaneously prevents Time from destroying the marbles and draws History forward to learn from the Smyrnaean Decree. The inference is that by taking responsibility for the protection of the marbles Oxford justifies the University's purpose as a guardian of culture.

The benefit of possessing the Pornfret marbles was a point on which Oxford scholars could unite regardless of political affiliation and, thus, the donation was celebrated by the institution as a whole. Oxford was under serious political pressure at the time and this point can hardly be

overemphasized.

The link between vertu and social status is not always clarified, but it should be noted that even theorists who saw it as a natural trait of the upper classes believed vertu should be developed andlor that it could be lost in a dissipated lifestyle.

The 1757 Almanack's print has been variously described by historians, but not discussed thoroughly. Helen Petter interprets it as a safe image that contains "nothing political", while Donna Kurtz (dis)regards it as a polite compliment in the form of a "classical fanta~y".~ Kerry Downes detected a personal reference in the Almanack, titling it "Lady Pomfret in an

architectural Landscape accompanied by some of the marbles", which demeans the image by implying that its primary message is subservient (and obsequious) acknowledgement of Jeffreys' patronage.' These interpretations are influenced by a misunderstanding of the importance of the benefaction. The misconception is based upon the critical accounts of the donation and

the subsequent public ceremony in the correspondence of Horace ~ a l ~ o l e . * Although Walpole was a Cambridge Whig, his comments on the

Pomfret benefaction are more reflective of his personal animosity towards Jeffreys and they have drawn the attention of scholars away from the

larger significance of her gift. In this dissertation I reassess the importance of the 1755 donation, evaluating the collection's value as a signifier of vertu in the first half of the eighteenth century in England. The history of the Pomfret collection of classical statues is analyzed, focussing on its transfer from Easton Neston to the University of ~ x f o r d . ~

As suggested by the title, this dissertation focusses on three subjects: Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Oxford University, and the Pornfret benefaction

of 1755. As background and context, some emphasis is also placed on the

- - -- - -- -

Petter ( 1974: 14) and Kurtz (2001 : 68).

'

Downes (1987: 67 n.48). Kurtz refers to the fact that Jeffreys used the statue of Minerva on her seal for the donation indenture to support this idea also (2001: 82). It is certainly possible, but the separation of the Pornfret name from this description in the Explanation argues that this was not the foremost point the administration wished to emphasize.

Particularly his letters to Mann (e.g. Yale 20.470-7 1, Yale 20.579) which have been read as precursors of later re-evaluations of the quality of the statues (cf. Michaelis 1882).

Previous scholarship on this part of the statuary's provenance is limited to short references; the most extensive account is Haynes' page-long summary (19'7'5: 14-15).

reputation of the Arundel collection of classical statuary. The narrative of the sculpture's provenance incorporates the histories of Jeffreys and of Oxford. These topics intersect in the third discussion, which provides an analysis of the Pornfret donation.

The first concern in the dissertation is to establish the character of Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Countess of Pomfret. Jeffreys' activities and concerns intimate how women (even conservative individuals) might embrace or evade societal expectations of vertu. The account of Jeffreys'

life reveals that her role in the Pomfret benefaction has previously been misrepresented. Social and cultural conditions were responsible both for her obtaining the statues and for her donating them. The Pomfret

benefaction is a demonstrable example of Jeffreys' vertu.

A second concern is to contextualize events at Oxford University within

the socio-political discourse of early Georgian England to show that the Pornfret collection was perceived as being useful to that academic

institution and that the gratitude expressed by the University and its scholars was genuine. T o recent historians the allegory of the 1757

Almanack print appears to provide a straightforward, self-congratulatory reference to Oxford's unassailable vertu as a preeminent university. But the

contemporary context of the University, beleaguered by government hostility, is critical for understanding the value of the Pomfret donation.'' At the time, the acquisition was especially useful for distinguishing the physical environment of (Tory) Oxford, in comparison to (Whig) Cambridge. By this point in the eighteenth century, sending young gentlemen on a Grand Tour to complete their education was standard practice. Oxford could now represent itself as a complete package; there was no need for further polish upon leaving this institution.

lo As academic institutions (arts and humanities in particular) face similar attacks today, it is

interesting to realize that this battle has been fought repeatedly and that the defence - the enrichment of human culture - is still valid.

The third concern, which serves as a sub-text for the entire dissertation, involves the philosophical concept of vertu. As an observable and

comprehensible characteristic, vertu was here embodied in the statues

themselves yet with the potential of being transmitted to meritorious . spectators. By revealing how ideals and ideologies of vertu informed the

benefaction and the actions of those it involved, I will address the larger significance of the Pornfret benefaction in eighteenth-century England.

In this dissertation I employ an interdisciplinary approach drawing upon many methodologies. I consider myself as primarily a social historian with a particular interest in material culture." In this vein, I am a scholar in the

Warburg tradition. My interest in classical heritage is part of what drew me to this school of thought, as Aby Warburg's notion of the "persistence of memory" resonates with my own experience. Simon Schama's

Landscape and Memory (v. 1996), in dealing with the power of the past and and its relevance in the present, provided a particularly admirable example of applied scholarship, as did Francis Haskell's History and its Images (v.

1995) in exploring how visual culture informs historical study.

I am not concerned with the intrinsic merits of the Pomfret sculpture, individually or as a collection, as judged by today's standards of

connoisseurship. Issues of quality, origin, and aesthetics are considered only as they relate to the history of the collection, and are applied only to establish its importance in English culture.

The interdisciplinary approach required to address the function of art in its social context was championed by Ernst Gombrich, who saw it as

appropriate to the complexity of human culture and history. There are multiple ways to construct this historical narrative; my interest therefore

" More rightly I should cite my interest in cultural history: "the history of all aspects of life" (Gombrich 1969: 25). But, ironically, the term is now more often understood as refemng to the history of high culture. While social history, which was restricted to studies of "the transformations in the organization of society" when Gombrich was first writing (1%9: 41), has been given the broader application.

lies in "patient" questioning and "detailed" observation." My approach to posing the question often follows Michael Baxandall's "patterns of

intention"." For example, in extending his analogy, the Pomfret

benefaction may be thought of as the "object" which solved the respective "problems" of Jeffreys and the University of Oxford based upon their different "circumstances".

While working within this framework, I freely draw upon any mode of questioning which suits my purpose, and I am reluctant to restrict myself within the limits of more specific theoretical labels. My introduction to, training in, and appreciation for the Warburg tradition, which deliberately draws upon multiple methodologies, is due to the exemplary guidance and impeccable scholarship of Carol Gibson-Wood.

A particular text which has heavily influenced my perspective in this

dissertation is Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny's seminal work, Taste and the Antique (v. 1994). This study recognized that classical statuary (even Roman copies of Greek works, now regarded as derivative and lacking in quality) had a specific and important cultural function in later European culture (ultimately, to inspire vertu). Originals, casts, and copies

all had the same purpose. As I have worked on this topic, other monographs have appeared which indicate the richness of this area of research.14

In the publicity surrounding Jeffreys' donation, high culture and

popular culture intersected in complicated ways, as newspapers, magazines, and prints were used to disseminate information about the benefaction. For background in print culture, I have relied heavily on Antony Griffiths' The Print in Stuart Britain (1989), Tim Clayton's The English Print 1688-1 802

l2 These adjectives are Gombrich's (1969: 38).

l3 Baxandall(1985); also Wright (2003: 3 1-37) for application of this approach. l4 For example Donna Kurtz's The Reception of Classical Art in England (2000).

Modelled on Haskell and Penny, this valuable analysis yields numerous suggestions for further study. It must be used with caution, however, as it was not carefully edited.

(1997) and "Publishing Houses: Prints of Country Seats" (1998), Sheila O'Connell's The Popular Print in England (1999) and Carol Gibson-Wood's "Classification and Value in a Seventeenth-Century Museum" (1997). The latter's recent illumination of the popular sector of the art market in early modern England has also been important,15 for drawing attention to the large and diverse audience seeking art and art-related information.16

As I formulated the initial goals for my research, questions of identity (particularly in terms of self-construction and social image drawing on classical traditions) directed my initial inquiries; Philip Ayres' work on political identity, although art-historically problematic, provided a useful starting point for my research.17 Originally I intended to restrict my

dissertation to such an analysis, considering how ownership and donation of the statue collection affected Jeffreys' public image. Questions of identity are still central to my dissertation, but the scope of my work broadened to become more historically based. As a result, the donation of the statues has become a focus around which to discuss the concerns of Jeffreys, Oxford University and wider English c u l t ~ r e . ' ~

When I first consulted Jeffreys' diaries in the Leicestershire Record Office, I discovered substantial documentation which provided an alternative view of her benefaction. This changed the direction of my

IS "Picture Consumption in London at the End of the Seventeenth Century," Art Bulletin

84.3 (2002): 491-500, widely considered a seminal work.

l6 Other important works concerning art consumption include Lippincott (1983), Brewer and Porter (1994), and Bermingham and Brewer ( 1995).

17

For example, it is misleading to say William Stukeley made an "error" in accepting either incised eyes for the first century B.C. or the presence of multiple copies (1997: 135). Stukeley had no way of judging the first, and the English were quite accustomed to multiple copies in portraiture of their own. I would add, however, that I read this book when it was first issued and found it stimulating and illuminating. Returning to it during my final draft, I saw that my title inadvertently echoes one of Ayres' chapter headings; it stands as a tribute.

'* While I did not begin my research with this format in mind, I have had a particular appreciation for such "micro-history" since reading The King 's Bedpost (Aston 1993).

work, as I felt it was imperative to present this information. I became

convinced that the donation was heavily informed by Jeffreys' concerns and education; that Oxford became the final destination of the Arundel statues was due to her concern for preserving the collection intact and resulted from her self-developed interest in cultural issues. Thus, as context for my analyses of the donation and the later provenance of the collection, I have provided a great deal of personal information about Jeffreys. Much of this material is included in a biographical characterization at the beginning of the dissertation (Chpt.l), but supplementary references will appear

throughout. My primary contribution to the scholarly field is, through my analysis of Jeffreys as a woman of vertu, to add her voice to the discourse concerning women's roles in the first half of eighteenth century England.

The structure of the rest of the dissertation is primarily chronological. The early provenance of the marbles is elaborated to explain their

association with the Earl of Arundel and to elucidate the high level of public awareness about the collection in the early modern period (Chpt. 2). A

summary of the dispersal of the statuary opens the next section, introducing a discussion of the collection taken to Easton Neston. It was these marbles that came into Jeffreys' possession and the circumstances which prompted

her donation are outlined here (Chpt. 3). The narrative then shifts to

illuminating both the socio-political context of Oxford University and the usefulness of the Pomfret benefaction (Chpt. 4). The subsequent relationship between Jeffreys and Oxford, including the circumstances of her death and her burial in the University church, ends the main part of the text (Chpt. 5).

The core of the dissertation involves a thorough analysis of the

commemoration of Jeffreys' gift, exploring various media, methods, agenda, and perceptions; this material is integrated into the latter two chapters. I conclude with a brief review of Jeffreys' subsequent loss of reputation and the later perception of her role in the provenance of the Arundel marbles, touching on issues of historical authority and personal voice.

Figure 1.1: Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Countess of Pomfret. En,pving by C. Watson after an original crayon portrait by A. Pond 1742.' In Bingley, Correspondence, 1805, vol. I, frontispiece.

'

Attribution of this image is usually given to Caroline Watson (e.g. Houfe 1998: 33); the subtitle printed with the engraving is misleading. But, since Watson was born c.1760 and Jeffreys died in 1761, whatever Watson provided had to be based on another image. Based on an entry in Arthur Pond's journal (BL Add MS 23724, f.92b) and similarities to his other portraits (v. Lippincott l983), I propose that the original crayon was his work.

1

Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys

The Countess has two thousand a year rent charge for jointure, five hundred as lady of the Bedchamber to the late Queen, and •’14,000 in money, in her own power, just recovered by a lawsuit - what a fund for follies! (Yale 20.389-90).

Henrietta Louisa Jeffreys, Countess of Pomfret, is the woman that Walpole referred to in the letter quoted above; he was reporting the 1753

death of Lord Pomfret to Horace Mann, who resided in Florence. Jeffreys' financial situation sounds most enviable. No doubt Walpole himself was consumed with envy (what follies might he have committed with •’14,000 in ready money?) - but he need not have been jealous.

Jeffreys' salary from the royal treasury was paid (when it was paid) at quarterly intervals in equal disbursements. Walpole may be correct about the amount; possibly such pensions were standardized, providing •’125 every quarter. But the rent (Jeffreys' entitlement from her marriage

settlement), was substantially less than Walpole estimated; the total figured at approximately •’ 1300.~ And the cash, the real money, the payment from the lawsuit, was not "in her own power" at all. Although Jeffreys had inherited the sum in 1709, it existed only on paper until 1761.'

The money came from estates in Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire with the former providing most of Jeffreys' income. Hard data for the Bedfordshire rents is lacking, but diary entries document rents from Northamptonshire, e.g.: "This Day received my great Rents from Northamptonshire 546: 9: 2" (April 8 1758); "Thomas Sheppard return'd this Day from Towcester where I had sent him to receive my Rents & he brought me 546: 9: 2

& a Letter from Mr Smart with the Half Year Accounts" (October 14 1758). Jeffrey s recorded: "at One my Lord Powis, his Lawyer, Mr Heaton, & my Lady Windsor's Agent's came &my Lord Granville came up Stairs, & Louisa present, I

received 17061 : 12 : 10 314 & Executed a Deed of Discharge & Release" (January 14 1761). The total here represents both the initial sum and interest owing.

The money matters. From her childhood until her death, Jeffreys' life and character were shaped by financial circumstances which developed out of the obscurities of the initial inheritance, its embezzlement, and the

resulting law suits. Furthermore, while we may speculate that financial security may not have undermined her commitment to vertu, the Pornfrets' restricted circumstances (discussed later in this chapter) actually

contributed to Jeffreys' wider appreciation for the classical world and women's roles in intellectual matters. Paradoxically, if she had actually possessed the sum which Walpole reported, it is unlikely that she would have ever owned the Pomfret collection of statuary. Both directly and indirectly Jeffreys' finances affected the Pornfret benefaction.

To understand the personal motives which influenced Jeffreys' choices concerning the Arundel marbles, we must understand something of the woman herself. Previous scholarship offers very little real information about Jeffreys; the same negative anecdotes have been recycled repeatedly.4 Here I offer an abbreviated biography of Jeffreys, based upon her own words. Other sources are evaluated and carefully incorporated to provide a balanced characterization of this early modern woman and to illuminate her role in the provenance of the Arundel statues. I suggest that her unique

situation motivated the the benefaction; in the hands of someone else, it is unlikely that the Pomfret collection of antique statuary would have been offered to Oxford.

In the construction of the biography, as in the rest of this dissertation, I

rely heavily on those of Jeffreys' personal documents which are preserved in the Leicestershire Record Office, and primarily on her substantial social diaries (figure l.2).' But a brief discussion is necessary here to indicate

As I demonstrate in the Conclusion, Horace Walpole's distorted view of Jeffreys has been used almost exclusively.

LRO DG71DG1-4, a list of her archival material, with brief description and dates covered, is provided at the beginning of the bibliography.

Figure 1.2: Jeffreys' social diaries.

Top two rows from a right-hand page showing headings and sample entries.

LRO DG7lD 11 4; July 1756.

how previous biographies and characterizations of Jeffreys have been based on a combination of references from Horace Walpole's Correspondence

and selectively chosen passages from her writings. Use of the latter has almost exclusively relied on Jeffreys' correspondence with Frances Thynne, Lady Hartford, at least that corpus of material which was

published by Bingley in 1805. This is a rich source, but it includes only a small part of a much more extensive a r ~ h i v e . ~

Simon Houfe has used the social diaries for the basis of his articles on Jeffreys. Otherwise I have only been able to locate a few brief extracts from them in the work of other scholars, who rarely consulted the diaries themselves, but simply requested selections which would provide evidence to support their preconceived ideas. For example, Brinsley Ford, having obtained xeroxed copies of some of the diaries, questioned the value of further information:

...

It is more difficult for me to decide about Item 3 and I wonder if I might enquire further about this volume of letters. You say that the volume contains detailed descriptions of ? Lady Pomfret's Italian visit March - 21 July. I wonder whether the detailed

descriptions refer to people or places? If the letters are gossipy and mention the names of a lot of English people and what they were doing then I would be interested. If on the other hand, the writer is giving her impressions of the Tuscan scenery, the Roman monuments, Florentine churches, or the pictures in the Pitti Palace, they would not be of interest to me as these subjects are discussed in countless letters and j o ~ r n a l s . ~

In terms of Ford's mandate, to provide a dictionary of English travellers in Italy, this approach is understandable. For Ford, Jeffreys was but one of thousands of Grand Tourists and one undistinguished by reputation. But it is obvious how Jeffreys' own concerns and interests can be misrepresented

Hughes (1940) seems to be the only scholar who has used the larger body of material, but her work on Hartford has not been properly used by those interested in Jeffreys.

This excerpt is from the carbon of a letter by Ford to Mr. Parker, LRO archivist (January 5 1967; Ford Archive, Pornfret folder 2). It is transcribed as it appears there.

by such selective use of her words.'

Since Jeffreys' character informs the Pomfret benefaction, however, her stated opinions are of utmost importance to my thesis. As demonstrated in the following section, Jeffreys' actions have not been understood because her words have been misinterpreted. I do admit to being selective myself; the diaries especially are a rich and fascinating source of material with broader applications for cultural studies of early modern ~ n ~ l a n d . ~ To serve the purposes of this dissertation, I have concentrated on information that informs the Pomfret benefaction. For example, I suggest that her impressions of the classical monuments in Rome can be directly applied to her regard for those antiquities which decorated her garden. Yet I would argue that my depiction of Jeffreys is more complete than any other to date.

The remainder of this chapter is a very abbreviated biography of Jeffreys, which focusses on several themes: cultural concerns, financial

circumstances, and personal relationships. The circumstance of the legal case referred to above directly informs each of four distinct eras in Jeffreys' life: her youth, her early marriage and years at court, her "retirement", and her widowhood. Each of these periods falls within

specific dates so this framework provides useful structure for discussion of the more impalpable themes in the following biographical account.

There are very few sources of information about the first part of Jeffreys' life. One travel journal dates to the summer of 1736; her regular diaries survive only from 1738. For the first half of her life there is only a short, point-form autobiography which Jeffreys prepared, seemingly in a

A pencilled notation on the rough typescript of the Pomfret entry describes her writing as "dull"; no surprise when she's been edited in this way. Nor have her records regularly been consulted to verify other reports.

9

Other diaries from the period have been published, but few editions are comprehensive

16

single sitting, not long after the travels documented in the 1736 journal.I0 But this scanty record of her early years still greatly improves our

knowledge concerning the events of Jeffreys' life, beginning with the very first entry. Until recently biographers usually cited Jeffreys' birth with no date and only an approximate year. But precision is now possible; she was born November 15 1698. It is not that the date itself is important, but the fact that the year is earlier than previous estimates affects our

understanding of Jeffreys' contemporaries.'

Born into the ranks of consequence and privilege, Jeffreys was granddaughter to both George Jeffreys, Baron of Wemm and Phil Herbert, 7th Earl of Pembroke. She was named Henrietta Louisa ;

.i p after Henrietta, Duchess of Portsmouth, and Louisa, Countess of Pembroke. The advantage of her status was no guarantee of security, however, and in her youth Jeffreys knew little stability or continuity. A younger brother born

in 1700 lived only nine months; then, a year later, her father contracted a

fatal fever. His death was of great consequence to Jeffreys for two primary reasons: she became sole heir to his estate and she was left with no

immediate family except her mother.

It is difficult to assess Jeffreys' relationship with her mother because she says very little about her. She does report that shortly after her father died, "[Mother] carried me to Mass". The way the two thoughts are linked

suggests that Charlotte Herbert had belonged to the established church only for the sake of her first marriage." A year after joining the Catholic

church, Jeffreys' mother made another decision, one that had a more lo It is included in a commonplace book in the Finch archive, DG7DUii. Her record provides a rough outline of her childhood and years at court. The following discussion, up to 1736, is based upon this account of her early life unless otherwise noted.

l1 Cf. 1700 (Yale 17.4 n.18); 1703 on the plinth supporting her portrait bust in the

Ashmolean. Houfe (1.998: 33) is the only source with an early date but, as a result of either a misreading or a typographical error, gives a date of 1692. The age difference between Jeffreys and Walpole is particularly significant given his characterization of her.

serious and lasting impact on her daughter. In 1703, Charlotte married Thomas, Lord Windsor, leaving the house in Lisle-Street "where she had lived with my Father & where I was born & he died".

At first Jeffreys lived with her mother and step-father in "Cheney- House in Chelsea"; the next year Lord Windsor took "Lindsey House at Chelsea". Jeffreys records the names of (presumably) every house she lived in, and there were many over the course of her youth. While her precise opinion of it is impossible to determine, it is obvious that the peripatetic nature of her childhood was indelibly engraved in her memory.

There was an increasing sense of family, although Jeffreys seems never to have had good relations with either her mother or her step-father.

Jeffreys' notations record that over the next twelve years the Windsors provided her with six siblings. One of two brothers died young, but Jeffreys remained on close terms with the others, in particular her sister Ursula and brother Herbert, who were closest to her in age.13

But while giving Jeffreys some family, the elder Windsors deprived her in other ways. In 1709 an Act of Parliament was passed to determine the settlement of Lord Jeffreys' estate (a government ruling was necessary for dissolving the Wemm barony). Part of the decision was in accordance with the Act of Distribution of Intestate Estates in that Jeffreys, as sole issue, was entitled to two-thirds of the estate left by her father. The other third belonged to the new Lady Windsor as part of the settlement for her first marriage. In the meantime, however, Charlotte Herbert had already signed over the entire estate to her second husband.'"

l3 As Mrs. Wadman and Lord Windsor, they feature prominently in Jeffreys diaries. l4 "John Ld Jeffreys died intestate without disposing of the 20000& & without male issue

Charlotte Ly Jeffreys possessed herself of all his estates and on or before her Marriage to Thomas Ld Windsor she conveyed all her Estates, Investments & all her interests in said

20,000 to said Lord Windsor and his Heirs and she is long since Dead" (BL Add MS

Jeffreys was raised believing that her father had died bankrupt and that Windsor's estate was meager.'' But her autobiographical account was prepared with full awareness of the 1709 Act, and this may have coloured her memory with some resentment, for her second reference to her step- father reads in full: "In 1704 my Ld Windsor took Lindsey House at

Chelsea where his Mother Sisters & my Self were added to his own family paying for our boards". Her record emphasizes that Windsor, having just received •’20,000 from his new wife, still required his mother and sisters, not to mention his step-daughter, to pay for their keep.

Jeffreys recorded very little else about her early days. Unfortunately, the lacuna includes her education. While some details can be inferred, it would be very interesting to know more precisely about her training, for she was considered an accomplished young woman during her time at court. While her somewhat pedantic nature seems to have annoyed those wits who preferred their conversation spiced with double entendres or outright vulgarity, there were plenty of people who sought her out for conversation and correspondence.

Her mother or someone from Windsor's family may have assisted in directing her, but Jeffreys gives the credit for her upbringing to Mary Burgis (formerly Mrs. Alderne), who later was retained as nurse and governess to Jeffreys' own children.16 This early training would have been

l5 "[She] knew nothing of her right and Interest in any share of said 20000& or to any share

of her said Fathers personal Estate until she discovered same shortly before the death of

said Thomas late Lord Windsor

...

on the occasion of the marriage of his Son Dft Lord Windsor with Alice Clavering now Dft Lady Windsor intending to settle said Estates and premises in Glanmorgan on that Mamage and being sensible that the same was subject to Pcts. said demand in respect of their share of said •’20000 and being advised that in order to settle same it would be necessary to have release from Pct. the Countess

...

did apply to her for that purpose" (BL Add MS 36183, f.181).

'"'This day About one in the Afternoon died Mrs Burgis A Sincere Xtian born to a

Gentlewoman's Fortune & Educated as such, her Name was Mary Alderne, having lost all her Estate, by the mismanagement of a Father in Law she at eighteen, went to Service, was my Mother's Woman & bred me up, she Married after I did, the Man that had bred up my Lord" (June 20 1757).

critical to her, for it is unlikely that Jeffreys had any wish to remain part of the Windsor household where she was essentially a paying guest. Being (apparently) without fortune, and lacking connections or influence, she had little to secure her future except her personal abilities and charms.17

Jeffreys' religion was another factor since, following the arrival of George I in 1714, a Catholic wife could be a serious liability to a man's career. Her mother's return to the Church of England in 1718, which permitted Jeffreys to do the same, probably came as a relief for more than religious reasons: "my Mother renounced the errors of the Church of Rome in the Parish Church of Buckland where I glad accompanied her have alway[s] gone unwillingly to Mass". Quite possibly Lady Windsor was motivated by concerns for the eligibility of her daughter. But it is unlikely that Jeffreys converted for the sake of expediency. She did seem to prefer the ceremony of High-Church ritual (which was also politically

problematic, because it was considered "popish" by Low-Church standards), but her private writings indicate her distaste for Catholic dogma.

Jeffreys' wedding took place barely six months after her return to the established church. In her later diaries Jeffreys notes that the match was proposed by Anne, Countess of Strafford, a family friend who had stood godmother to Jeffreys' sister Catherine in 1715. Strafford's choice was the young Lord Lempster, who had just returned from his Grand Tour at the age of twenty-two. Of recently ennobled family and limited estate, he was an appropriate match for a young woman of good pedigree and little dowry. Fortunately, Strafford seems to have considered suitability of character and personality as well.'' The Windsors must have made some

l7 These seem to have been considerable. Even accounting for idealizing in contemporary portraiture, Jeffreys' portraits by Dahl and Hudson are compelling. The references to her lack of appeal in Walpole's correspondence reflect the views of men twenty years younger. l8 Jeffreys remained appreciative: "This Day Died Anne Countess Dowager of Strafford Daughter of Sir Henry Johnson & Widow of Thomas Wentworth Earl of Strafford & Kt of

the Garter. She proposed the marriage between my M & me & was at it a generous good- natured Woman" (September 19 1754).

provision for Jeffreys marriage portion, for there are later references to the settlement, but the origin of the money is not clear.

Jeffreys' transition to married life seems to have been abrupt. There is no mention of any courtship in the autobiography, simply: "On the 14th of July 1720 being Thursday I was married to Thomas Farmor Ld Lempster;

& the next day went with him to his House in Northamptonshire call'd

Easton". It is hazardous to speculate about historical relationships, clouded as they are by latter-day expectations and etiquette, but by her own

accounts, Jeffreys' marriage was a happy partnership. Jeffreys was very critical of unhappy marriages," and on the rare occasions when she

described her own, it was with warmth and love. Any such declarations on her husband's part have not survived, but his business records reveal his concern and respect for her, which suggests strong personal feelings

existed on his side as well. Whether their relationship was fueled with early attraction, or simply developed over the years, is a moot point.

With her marriage, another phase of Jeffreys' life began. The next eighteen years were busy and apparently happy. Jeffreys' married life would be encumbered by financial hardship, but there seem to have been few difficulties in the early years. After wintering at Easton their first year

together, the Lempsters joined London society. The first entry of the

autobiography from this phase of Jeffreys' life relates to their arrival in the capital: "On 15th 1721 of April we came to our House in Hanover-Square that my Ld bought of George Hamilton ~ s ~ r " . ~ ' As they established

themselves in court circles and various social groups, more documentation

l9 More specifically, Jeffreys probably had a narrower view of what constituted an unhappy marriage than is usual today, but she did not countenance abusive relationships. Her

continued support of Lady Lymington following the latter's escape, and subsequent divorce, from her husband is manifest in the diaries and provides a concrete example of Jeffreys' views on this matter (June 1747 through May 1750; DG7/D2/i and DG2lD31iv).

Others will be cited later in this chapter.

20 It is telling that although the house was purchased by Lempster, Jeffreys unself-

for their activities is available from other sources.

In this phase too, most of the entries in Jeffreys' autobiographical account are concerned with childbearing, this time her own. Ten children were born within fourteen years.2' Birth date, christening date and

godparents are recorded for each; for example: "On May 29th 1721 I was brought to bed of a Daughter Christian'd on the 3d of June, Sophia; Charlotte Ly Windsor, Sophia Ly Lempster & Thomas E of Pembroke answering for her". This type of information is useful not just for what directly relates to Jeffreys, but also for her social circles (The godparents to her second child, George, were the Prince and Princess of Wales). Jeffreys' early position in society is otherwise difficult to assess.

In the autobiography Jeffreys' few notations not related to childbirth are brief. For example, between birth records of the two eldest children is a single line: "In December this year my Ld was created Earl of Pomfret". This sentence is interesting for documenting the rise in the Pornfrets'

status, but also for the offhand wording, similar to Jeffreys' later notations of their court positions: "On May 28th 1725 my Ld received the red Ribon

& I was made Ly of the Bedchamber to the Ph: of Wales". This is

particularly significant since one of Horace Walpole's later criticisms of Jeffreys (repeated by almost all subsequent accounts) was that she was obsessively concerned with precedence.22 here is no hint, in this account written not long before their acquaintance, of any such attitude. She does not even mention her new title, or any alteration to her position according to the rules of preferment.

The children were: Sophia (b. May 29 1721)' George (b. June 25 1722), William (b. July 23 1723), Charlotte (b. February 16 1724), John (b. August 3 1726), Henrietta (b.

September 2 1 1727), Juliana (b. May 21 1729)' Louisa (b. September 23 173 1)' Anne (b. April 21 1733)' Thomas (b. October 29 1734).

22

Walpole's comment in his correspondence and his own footnote to the passage follow here: "What pains my Lady Pomfret would take to prove19 that an abdicated King's wife did not take place of an English Countess"; "19. Lady Pomfret and Princess Craon did not visit at Florence upon a dispute of precedence (HW)" (Yale 20.132).

Thus, while Jeffreys' autobiography consists of brief notations, the evidence in these simple entries has broader implications. For example, when Louisa was born in 1731, the Duke of Richmond stood for her. This

notation not only confirms the link between the families suggested in Hogarth's painting A Scene from the Indian Emperor, but also argues that

the relationship between the Pornfrets and Richmonds was not a casual one. Another godparent recorded by Jeffreys was Charlotte Clayton (later Lady Sundon), who attended the christening of Henrietta in 1727. This relationship too is documented in other sources; for example, some

correspondence between the two women has sur~ived.'~ The account that is cited most often, however, is an unsubstantiated anecdote in Horace

Walpole's documents. He reports that Clayton was bribed by Pomfret to secure the preferment, when he was appointed Master of the Horse to Queen Caroline just after her coronation in October 1727:

I was saying to Lady Pornfret, 'to be sure [Lady Sundon] is dead very rich!' She replied with some warmth, 'she never took money.' When I came home, I mentioned this to Sir R[obert]. 'No,' said he, 'but she took jewels; Lord Pomfret's place of

Master of the Horse to the Queen was bought of her for a pair of diamond ear-rings, of •’1400 value.' One day that she wore them at a visit at old Marlbro's, as soon as she was gone, the Duchess said to Lady Mary Whortley, 'now can that woman have the impudence to go about in that bribe?' 'Madam,' said Lady Mary, 'how would you have people know where wine is to be sold, unless there is a sign hung

23 BL Add MS 20104, passim.

(Yale 17.277; from a private letter to Mann written in 1742). Mary Wortley Montagu was not shy of recording her own bon mots, but even the most exhaustive work on her

(Grundy 1999: 262) relies on Walpole in this instance. Walpole was less positive in a variant account included in his Reminiscences (along with his own footnote): "Lady Sundon had received a pair of diamond earrings as a bribe for procuring a considerable post in Queen Caroline's family for a certain Peer,* and decked with these jewels, paid a visit to the old Duchess, who as soon as She was gone, said 'what an impudent creature, to come hither with her bribe in her ear!' 'Madame, replied Lady Mary Wortley , who was present, how should people know where wine is sold, unless a bush is hung out?' *Said to have been the first Earl of Pomfret" (Walpole 1924: 91).

Thus is Jeffreys' defense of her friend reworked as prevarication.

Certainly the story may be true. Pomfret was not part of Robert Walpole's political party,z5 so any post available to him would not have been due to recognition by the "prime" rnini~ter.'~ But internal evidence in the Sundon documents shows that Clayton had been acting as mentor and patron for the Pomfrets since well before the first surviving letter, written in July 1725. This relationship developed into a friendship which lasted many years; Jeffreys' daughter Sophia stayed with Clayton at least once, and Jeffreys went often to sundon.'? And Pomfret's post as Master of the Horse benefitted Clayton in turn. He provided carriage when requested and accepted her reference for one of his esquires.28 While every form of gift carries some expectation, making presents to influential people was not at all unusual in the eighteenth century. It is, however, unlikely that the Pomfret exchequer could have borne the estimated •’1400. Whether the earrings were their offering and whether they were actually intended as a bribe is impossible to determine.

With a large family to provide for, court responsibilities (purchased preferments aside), as well as the expectations of their rank, it is no

wonder that the Pomfrets had financial difficultie~.~~ It was not, of course,

25 I have not determined Pomfret's affiliation. But whether leaning towards Tory or Whig,

he was both moderate and opposed to Robert Walpole' s administration.

26 Robert Walpole's own use of preferment as "bribery" is well documented (Speck 1996: 17), as is his acceptance of expensive paintings from those who wished, or owed, favours (Moore 1996: 53-54). Horace Walpole is rather silent on these counts, which is indicative of the subjective nature of such labels.

27 Sophia's visit is referred to in an undated letter (BL Add MS 20104, f.129b); some

examples of Jeffreys' visits to Sundon: September 1728, August 1730, August 173 1, August 1735 (BL Add MS 20104, f.160, f.170, f.172, f.178).

28 Pomfret sends notice to Clayton that a coach will be available for Mrs. Titchbourne, January 14 1731 (BL Add MS 20104, f.125); Jeffreys reports the appointment of Mr. Temple as esquire in an undated letter to Clayton (BLAdd MS 20104, f.131).

29 In the autobiography, Jeffreys notes that Sophia was one of the bridesmaids at the